Re-Posted May 6, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

What is emerging is precisely what I reported. I know for a fact that there were very high up people who sold even everything that they had at the end of January including stocks and bonds and it was on the basis of a coming virus. I believe if investigated, this will be the biggest inside trading scandal in all of history.

Sen. Richard Burr Burr sold off a significant percentage of his stocks shortly before the market crashed on February 13th selling between $628,000 and $1.72 million of his holdings in 33 separate transactions.

Burr is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of the health committee. He clearly had access to the government’s most highly classified information about threats to America’s security and public health concerns.

However, it turns out that Burr’s brother-in-law, Gerald Fauth, who has a post on the National Mediation Board, also sold between $97,000 and $280,000 worth of shares in six companies the same day.

What is quite interesting is that just before his sell-off, Burr had assured the public that the federal government was well-prepared to handle the virus. He wrote that on a Feb. 7 op-ed that he co-authored with another senator. He wrote: “the United States today is better prepared than ever before to face emerging public health threats, like the coronavirus.”

Nevertheless, according to a recording obtained by NPR, Burr had given a VIP group at an exclusive social club a much more dire preview of the economic impact of the the coronavirus. He told them that it could curtail business travel, cause schools to be closed and result in the military mobilizing to compensate for overwhelmed hospitals.

Burr’s stock sales have been under investigation by the FBI. Burr defended his actions, saying he relied solely on public information, including CNBC reports, to inform his trades and did not rely on information he obtained as a senator.

What is really interesting is the source of his information. Insider trading you get to retire in prison for 20-years where you can have your meals cooked for you and you do not have to deal with robo-calls, and you at last get to live tax free.

Every university, agency, and official including at the UN and the WHO, anyone connected with the Climate Change movement, including Green Peace, should now be compelled to reveal all the transactions in February.

There is ABSOLUTELY now way that Burr relied on information from CNBC the day after the high was made. They did not call for a total market crash. I believe based upon his actions, he was told in February what they were planning to do. Someone inside the NIH already new the plan. Let’s see where that info leads. It’s really not that hard – just follow the money!

A few notes of caution. Don’t fall into the outrage trap; the DOJ will certainly justify the FBI notes as a valid discussion on investigative strategy, nothing more.

Second, Bill Barr did not appoint Missouri Attorney Jensen in an effort to support General Flynn. AG Barr was ordered by the FISA court to review every case and all evidence that touched upon the fraudulent Carter Page FISA application. Be careful about projecting a motive onto Bill Barr around these revelations. Without that FISC ordered sequestration review order; the DOJ/FBI may not have moved on this.

Lastly, despite the known corruption within the existing FBI leadership {outlined here}, and we can now add the FBI hiding these documents for 3 years, AG Bill Barr continues to pour effusive praise upon the FBI. That reality doesn’t reconcile with a good intent.

When the FISA Court responded to the DOJ Inspector General report in December and January 2020 they requested an action plan from the DOJ and FBI to respond to the issues raised about misrepresentations to the court.

The DOJ/FBI replied to the FISA Court admitting the last two FISA renewals (April, June ’17) used against Carter Page were insufficiency predicated while withholding opinion on the original application (Oct ’16) and first renewal (Jan ’17).

To address the consequences of fraudulently obtained FISA warrants the DOJ and FBI informed the court they would begin a process to “sequester” all collected evidence from all four FISA warrants. [FISA COURT LINK]

Sequestering the evidence is essentially a search for what investigative material the FISA warrants were used to obtain; ie. the search for the fruit of the poisoned tree; and then a review of all DOJ/FBI cases that may have utilized that investigative material.

In late January the DOJ contacted the FISA court and asked for an extension to the deadline. The FISA court granted an extension until February 5th [LINK] The final response from the DOJ has not been declassified or released by the FISC for public review.

However, with media reporting of AG Barr using “outside prosecutors” to review current, former and ongoing cases, it simply makes sense this ‘outsider’ effort is part of the DOJ/FBI sequestration review.

If you consider that several DOJ offices may be involved with the material under review, including the Southern District of New York; The Eastern District of New York; The Eastern District of Virginia; The Washington DC District, and even Main Justice itself; it makes sense that outside DOJ personnel would be needed for this review.

Additionally, all of the various FBI field offices who may have used the FISA authorizations as the underpinning evidence to gain separate Title-1 and/or Title-3 warrants, wiretaps or National Security Letters, in their various investigative cases would also need to be reviewed. This is an aspect the media is not discussing while they write opinions about AG Bill Barr bringing in outside DOJ attorneys.

The media are framing the use of outside attorneys as Bill Barr working on behalf of President Trump to undermine current and former prosecutions. However, understanding the FISC order requiring the sequestration effort, the use of outsiders is absolutely necessary.

The same U.S. Attorneys, prosecutors and FBI agents who used evidence gathered from the FISA warrants cannot be the same attorneys, agents and prosecutors making decisions about what parts of the warrants were used to gather evidence and how each part of any case was assembled by the use therein. It is a simple matter of a conflict of interest.

Additionally, the Robert Mueller team of FBI investigators and special counsel prosecutors certainly used the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants as part of their investigative evidence collection. Common sense would tell us this had to be the case or the FBI and Mueller team would not have requested renewals of the FISA warrant.

If the FBI & Special Counsel were not using the FISA warrant(s) to capture information, they would not have needed them renewed. Despite media spin to the contrary, the simple truth of renewals holding investigative value is evident in the renewal itself (ie. common sense).

Under this rather extensive effort to find exactly which investigations -over the course of three years- were touched directly, or indirectly, by the four FISA warrants; and/or which investigative paths may have been influenced downstream or enhanced -by varying degrees of importance- by evidence stemming from the FISA warrants; a reasonable person could see how AG Bill Barr would need to put a team together to retrace the investigative steps and make the sequestration determinations.

Obviously, for reasons of biased intent, corporate left-wing media would like to ignore why outside prosecutors are needed under this framework. Ignored in part because honest reporting would require an admission the FISA warrants were fraudulently obtained; and in part because the left-wing media have never informed the public of the DOJ/FBI sequestration effort in the first place. Likely more than half the country has no idea the DOJ and FBI have been told to go find the material.

There have been numerous articles, thousands of words, and endless hours of pundit protestations about Bill Barr using outside DC lawyers to review all of the previous DOJ Attorney activities; yet not a single time have they ever acknowledged the originating order from the FISA court requiring the DOJ/FBI to conduct the review. Imagine that?

New York Times – Mr. Barr has also installed a handful of outside prosecutors to broadly review the handling of other politically sensitive national-security cases in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, the people said. The team includes at least one prosecutor from the office of the United States attorney in St. Louis, Jeff Jensen, who is handling the Flynn matter, as well as prosecutors from the office of the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen. (more)

Likewise, considering AG Barr has been ordered by the court to review all the targets, cases and evidence, we should not be projecting an altruistic “clean up” effort… Arguably, one could say Barr is being forced to reopen, and revisit, all of this material. Certainly Bill Barr would not willingly expose the corrupt intents of his friends Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein…. So we should watch carefully.

It would certainly be ironic if the FISA court ends-up in 2020 as the least corrupt institution within a DC network fraught with institutional corruption.

Many people forget that Senator Chuck Grassley has skin in this investigation. Grassley has always suspected Flynn was framed. Back in June of 2018, Senator Grassley was very suspicious of what Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was doing to facilitate the targeting of Michael Flynn when he said:

…”If the facts are inconsistent with the plea agreement, that would be an entirely different kettle of fish.”… (more)

“If the facts are inconsistent with the plea agreement, that would be an entirely different kettle of fish.”

JUNE 2018 – The Department’s reply to my May 11, 2018 letter seeking information about the circumstances surrounding Lt. General Michael Flynn’s reported conversations with the Russian ambassador and FBI records related to those conversations is insufficient. The letter only recounts a series of publicly known facts about Lt. General Flynn’s plea agreement and relies on improper excuses in refusing to provide the requested information. The Committee requires this information to fulfill its Constitutional function and its charge under Senate Rules to conduct oversight of the Department of Justice.

First, as you know, some of that information was first requested on a bipartisan basis before your confirmation. The Committee has waited patiently for much more than a year for the criminal inquiry related to Lt. General Flynn to conclude. It has been more than five months since his guilty plea. Thus, there is no longer any legitimate reason to withhold facts from the Senate about the circumstances of his conversations with the Russian ambassador and his FBI interview.

Second, the Department’s letter erroneously suggests that complying with Congressional oversight would result in “the reality or the appearance of political interference” in a “pending criminal prosecution.” There is no pending prosecution. The guilty plea was more than five months ago.

The Department’s letter describes in detail what everyone already knows. Lt. General Flynn admitted to the Statement of Offense with the able assistance of counsel. All that remains is for Lt. General Flynn to be sentenced. Simply disclosing facts to the Committee could not possibly “interfere” with the case at this late date, assuming those facts are consistent with the representations that prosecutors arranged for Lt. General Flynn to swear to in federal court.

If the facts are inconsistent with the plea agreement, that would be an entirely different kettle of fish. (more pdf link)

The first of the sealed documents provided to the Flynn defense have been unsealed. The documents include emails between: FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, his FBI counsel Lisa Page, as well as FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka in the lead-up to the January 24, 2017 interview of Michael Flynn.

This specific release is the court filing of five pages that was initially turned-over to the Flynn defense team last Friday. [The pdf is here] [There are an additional 11 pages of documents from another production earlier today; those are not in this release]

The documents today also include handwritten notes taken by FBI counterintelligence chief William “Bill” Priestap; which show him both questioning and outlining the purpose of the interview: to remove National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

According to the Priestap notes it appears the position of the FBI on January 23, 2017, was that Michael Flynn had violated the Logan Act by having a conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on December 29, 2016, prior to the inauguration.

This was a ridiculous position, there was no violation of the Logan Act; however, it was this position from which the questioning the next day, January 24 2017, would be based.

The next page of notes discusses the “Afterwards”:

The redactions are likely “the transcript“; where the FBI has the transcript of the call between Michael Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak. The redaction would be continued to protect the source of the material (“sources and methods”).

Interestingly, on the second day, the actual day of the interview, it appears Bill Priestap had second thoughts and was questioning the goal of the interview: “I thought about it last night and I believe we should rethink this”…

FBI Asst. Director for Counterintelligence Bill Priestap then asks the question: “what is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

The premise of “wrongdoing” vis-a-vis a Logan Act violation was ridiculous. As the incoming National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn would be talking to many counterparts throughout the globe. Even Priestap started to realize what they were doing was “playing games.”

[…] Multiple officials confirmed to Just the News that the author of the notes is William Priestap, the now-retired FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence and the ultimate supervisor for fired agent Peter Strzok, who led the Russia probe.

[…] A special prosecutor is reviewing DOJ’s and the FBI’s handling of the Flynn prosecution, which led to the former Trump adviser and retired general pleading guilty to lying to the FBI under a plea deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia case.

Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell filed a court motion last week saying new evidence has emerged showing Flynn was “framed” and his conviction should be dismissed. The officials said the notes are part of that new evidence and had been withheld from Flynn’s defense team for years even though they were potential evidence of innocence.

More evidence is being produced in the next few days that will further illuminate the FBI’s conduct in the case that is now at the center of the DOJ investigation, officials said. (more)

Keep in mind, the Mueller special counsel knew this all along…

Keep in mind, former DAG Rod Rosenstein knew this all along…

Also keep in mind, current FBI Director Chris Wray and current FBI Legal Counsel Dana Boente knew this all along….

These documents have been inside the DOJ and FBI for more than three years; while they prosecuted him and drove his family into bankruptcy.

NOTE: Just before this was published the court has released the notes. More will follow…

It appears U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen from Missouri, who was brought in to review all of the DOJ case files surrounding Michael Flynn, has provided an additional eleven pages of exculpatory FBI notes. Michael Flynn’s defense counsel Sidney Powell describes the latest notes as: “even more appalling than the Friday production“.

The Flynn defense and the DOJ (likely Jensen) have filed a joint motion with the court asking for the documents to be unsealed after a classification review. However, as Techno Fog noted looking at the cover letter, it appears these notes were already in the custody of the Special Counsels Office (“DOJSCO”)

Breaking…. As this was being assembled, the court has unsealed some of the notes.

Yesterday Maria Bartiromo caused a stir when she tweeted that sources told her “Michael Flynn will be exonerated this week. It was a total fraud. A set up.”

Today, in an interview with Georgia Rep. Doug Collins Ms. Bartiromo expands on what she was told.

Apparently, former FBI chief legal counsel James Baker made notes surrounding the FBI meeting where agent Peter Strzok and agent Joseph Pientka interviewed National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. According to Bartiromo James Baker’s notes are exculpatory in that they show the intent and purpose of the FBI interview was to set-up Lt Gen. Flynn.

.

Baker was removed from his position December 21, 2017, around the same time when James Wolfe was removed from the SSCI. James Baker resigned from the FBI on May 4, 2018, right in the middle of the 2018 FBI cover-up operations. When Baker resigned the James Wolfe indictment was hidden & sealed (since March ’18); the Julian Assange indictment was hidden and sealed (since March ’18); and two months later the FBI lied to the FISA court (July 12, 2018).

The in the spring and summer of 2018 the DOJ/FBI was trying to: (1) protect Robert Mueller’s fraudulent investigation; (2) hide their prior corruption, including fisa; and (3) delay everything until the Democrats could take the House in the mid-terms.

Re-Posted Apr 8, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

Many people have written to ask if they can write to the Supreme Court because this is a battle for all of us against the bankers. I guess the more the merrier. I do think if the Supreme Court would take it, they would have to at least address what everyone knows — bankers walk on water and it’s not because they do not know how to swim. They swim in the swamp very nicely. Perhaps it would be the first shot fired in the battle to restore our Constitutional rights. I believe we will still have the right to freedom of speech for a little while longer, so those who want to write to make their voice heard, go ahead.

Supreme Court of the United States

1 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20543

RE: Martin A. Armstrong v SEC et al (19-392)

Justice Sotomayor recused herself from my case because she had written the separate opinion below that said I was still entitled to Due Process, which in reality had got me to the Supreme Court the first time. That was the only reason why they had to release me for fear that the Supreme Court would rule. With Sotomayor recusing herself when she had ruled against the government on my case when she was on the 2nd circuit court of appeals, that means we would be down to 8 justices with only a more difficult position 4 – 4.

There are people who are desperately trying to dissuade people from listening to me because they cannot debate the message. They are usually paid to be against everything we are supposed to stand for in a free society. They have lied about everything and desperately tried to hide the truth. This makes one wonder, what is their motive? They never want to tell the truth that the bank stole the money. I never had to pay a dime, and all I ever had to say in court was that the bank took the money for its own benefit. Then I was gagged for life to prevent me from helping my clients. This is the truth they want to hide from the public and that includes those controlling Wikipedia.

Many people have also written in to ask what is going on in the Supreme Court. The government has been pleading not to hear the case. The New York boys keep the misrepresentation going and never want to discuss the fact that the bank had to plead guilty and return the money ($606 million) in return for no one from the bank being personally charged – as always.

They also could not hide the fact that the notes were issued in Japanese yen, not dollars, so where a receiver is supposed to gather all the money, in this case, they sold the notes to the bank and the bank redeemed the notes keeping a $400 million profit in the currency which belonged to Princeton Economics International.

The SEC admitted that there was more money in the company than needed. They also claimed that all the evidence was destroyed in the 911 attack, which included all the tapes they seized claiming “perhaps” they would lead to missing assets when I warned that would reveal the criminal activity of the bankers they were protecting.

I owed no restitution. The government was trying hard to use two accountings, one in dollars for me and one in Japanese yen for the bankers. They did this knowing full well that they were attempting to engage in fraud upon the court. They lost that one.

The government did not like that Judge McKenna was trying to protect me and saw through the crime that the prosecutors were pulling off on the public and the courts for political purposes. They went to the Chief Judge Mukasey and had Judge McKenna removed. They sealed the docket sheet so nobody will ever know how they got rid of Judge McKenna because he was ruling against them.

The ultimate fraud upon the public was to impose a lifetime gag order on me to prevent me from helping my clients against the bank that ultimately had to plead guilty and repay the money they stole. The government controls Wikipedia and refuses to ever mention the bank had to plead guilty. Anyone who tries to edit Wikipedia is immediately removed proving it is just controlled propaganda which is why nobody should EVER donate a dime to Wikipedia – it’s just controlled propaganda for political purposes when it counts.

The civil contempt was used to force me to plea for I was never entitled to a trial. The government said I could be held in prison indefinitely until I die and even denied me a lawyer. That was inside a tower in New York never being above to see grass again or feel rain. The compromise was that I would plea but refuse to ever say I stole anything. All I had to say to end the confrontation was about the bank stole the money – not me.

My plea was that I failed to tell my clients, over a weekend, that the bank had stolen the money “for its own benefit“. The government withheld every piece of exculpatory evidence possible, including this tape which I found a copy of in my mother’s basement when I was released. This is me talking with one of the people at Republic about who was moving money in my accounts. It was obviously not me, and I was clearly not in some conspiracy with the bankers.

In order to even do the documentary film on me, “The Forecaster,” they had to (1) verify the facts, (2) have the film insured against any slander liability, and (3) the gave the government the opportunity to give their side and they refused to appear. To get that insurance from Lloyd’s of London, everything had to be proven right down to the fact that this written correspondence demanded I turn over the source code to Socrates. I refused.

There are some things in life worth dying for and I was not about to see my life’s work end up in the hands of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs was running Princeton Economics from its boardroom since the receiver appointed by the court was Alan Cohen, became a board member of Goldman Sachs, I believe, as a reward for seizing all the tapes and protecting the bankers. Cohen is now the #2 guy running the SEC.

My case has long stood as a warning why you should NEVER have an account with any of the New York banks. They can actually do whatever they like and the New York court will ALWAYS protect the bankers. Never has a single banker EVER been criminally prosecuted for any of the major crashes since 1998 and the Long-Term Capital Management crisis.

Perhaps this is just the doom of the United States. It is the SWAMP that Trump has talked about, but not even he understands how deep that swamp really is. Our future actually rides on this case. If we cannot stand up and expose the banker even ONCE, there is no hope that our future will ever be bright again. There is no right to equal protection of the law. There is no right to a trial by jury, to your lawyer, to anything. It is all simply the discretion of a judge. This is the sad statement the is reminiscent of the complaint of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

He has obstructed the administration of justice by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices and the amount and payment of their salaries.

For protecting them (his agents), by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;… establishing therein an arbitrary government,

History Repeats – Always because ultimate power leads to ultimate corruption.

After the DOJ Offfice of Inspector General (OIG), Michael Horowitz, presented his December 2019 findings of the FISA application used against U.S person Carter Page, the gross deficiencies and intentional fraud were so extensive the IG said he was going to review a sample of FISA applications to identify if the fraud and abuse was widespread.

The OIG began reviewing FISA applications from eight field offices (the proverbial “rank and file”). The OIG selected 29 FISA applications from those field offices over the period of October 2014 to September 2019. Additionally, every field office and the DOJ-NSD generate internal “Accuracy Reviews”, or self-checks on FISA applications; so the OIG inspected 42 of the accuracy review FISA files to determine if they were compliant.

The results were so bad the IG produced an interim memorandum to the DOJ and FBI [pdf link here]. Within the 17-page-memo the IG notifies Attorney General Bill Barr and FBI Director Chris Wray that all of the claimed FISA processes, in every field office, are grossly deficient, and in most cases there is zero compliance with FISA standards. The IG memorandum is presented before the IG even looks at the specifics of the non-compliance.

Below is the report/memorandum. Additionally I am summarizing the stunning top-lines identified by the IG memo:

The IG reviewed 29 FISA applications, surveillance warrants, used against U.S. persons.

The 29 FISA applications were from eight different field offices.

The FISA applications were from Oct/2014 through Sept/2019.

All of the FISA applications reviewed were approved by the FISA court.

The ‘Woods File’ is the mandatory FBI evidence file that contains the documentary proof to verify all statements against U.S. persons that are contained in the FISA application. Remember, this is a secret court, the FISA applications result in secret surveillance and wiretaps against U.S. persons outside the fourth amendment.

♦ Within the 29 FISA applications reviewed, four were completely missing the Woods File. Meaning there was zero supportive evidence for any of the FBI claims against U.S. persons underpinning the FISA application. [ie. The FBI just made stuff up]

♦ Of the remaining 25 FISA applications, 100% of them, all of them, were materially deficient on the woods file requirement; and the average number of deficiencies per file was 20. Meaning an average of twenty direct statements against the target, supporting the purpose of the FISA application, sworn by the FBI affiant, were unsubstantiated. [The low was 5, the high was 63, the average per file was 20]

♦ Half of the FISA applications reviewed used Confidential Human Sources (CHS’s). The memo outlines that “many” of applications containing CHS claims had no supportive documentation attesting to the dependability of the CHS.

♦ Two of the 25 FISA applications reviewed had renewals; meaning the FISA applications were renewed to extended surveillance, wiretaps, etc. beyond the initial 90-days. None of the renewals had any re-verification. Both FISAs that used renewals were not compliant.

But wait… it gets worse.

The DOJ and FBI have an internal self-check mechanism. The DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) chief counsel, and the chief counsel for every FBI field office are required to conduct an “Accuracy Review” of selected FISA applications. One per field office (25 to 30 field offices),which are also sent to DOJ-NSD (main justice) for general counsel inspection.

Keep in mind, these “accuracy reviews” are known in advance, so the FBI has all the time in the world to select the best FISA file for review. Additionally, I surmise the OIG wanted to inspect the “accuracy review” FISA’s because they would show the best light on the overall system itself. The OIG was looking for the best, most compliant, product to report on.

However, when the OIG inspected 42 of these Accuracy Reviews, the IG identified that only three of them had accurately assembled documents (Woods File) supporting the application. The error rate within the files self-checked was over 93%.

So the best FBI files are selected to undergo the FBI and DOJ-NSD accuracy review. The accuracy review takes place by FBI legal counsel and DOJ-NSD legal counsel. However, the IG finds that only three FBI applications in the accuracy reviews were compliant.

The error rate in the files undertaken by the internal accuracy review was over 93% (3 compliant out of 42 reviewed). These were the FISA files with the greatest possibility of being accurate. Let that sink in…

How did State Department view this fraud at the Global Fund?

Note: Pictured above is Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO.) He is the first WHO director-general who is not a medical doctor. He holds a Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD) in Community Health from the University of Nottingham, and a Master of Science (MSc) in Immunology of Infectious Diseases from the University of London. From 2005-2012, he was Ethiopia’s Minister of Health.

Only one Democrat House member showed up to ask questions—the appointed Democrat “delegate” from the District of Columbia. There weren’t enough people in the audience to field a baseball team. It was the last Republican-led meeting of the subcommittee before the Democrats took control of the House. The chair, Rep. Mark Meadows, would later become President Trump’s Chief of Staff.

The witnesses were (right) John F. Moynihan, Principal, JFM & Associates, Compliance Advisory Group and (left) Lawrence Doyle, DM Income Advisors, Managing Partner. Think of them as bounty-hunter forensic accountants wading through the financials of the Clinton Foundation. If they can document tax fraud, they’re entitled to a percentage of the money owed to the government. And they believe they have sufficient documentation assembled.

Oversight of Nonprofit Organizations, A Case Study on the Clinton Foundation

The title to their presentation was “Oversight of Nonprofit Organizations, A Case Study on the Clinton Foundation”.

For an enhanced appreciation of what follows, you might open the link to the March 23, 2019 post, and skim the article. It puts what follows into context.

Set-up: On March 27, 2020, the “Clinton Foundation Whistleblowers”—as they describe themselves—tweeted a multi-instalment thread that is consolidated below into a straight copy format, without editing. The full content of their tweet is in italics:

“Clinton Foundation Whistleblowers, (Doyle-Moynihan): In light of our current public health crisis, I expect we will be hearing more from/about the World Health Organization (WHO) and the need for more global government funding a la a new Global Fund. Stay with me. This gets good:

The current head of WHO is a Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, formerly the head of the Ministry of Health in Ethiopia, a speaker at the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, and named chair of the board of the Global Fund in July 2009.

Tedros Adhanom’s tenure as board chair of the Global Fund

The Global Fund is an independent Geneva-based financing entity launched in 2002 to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The US government provides 1/3rd of its funding totalling $18B to date since inception.

During Tedros Adhanom’s tenure as board chair of the Global Fund, the organization gets rocked by claims of fraud and misappropriation of funds. The US House Committee on Foreign Relations drafts a report “to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to correct and prevent the misuse of Fund resources.” (page 6/10) The Congressional report and other reviews minimize the size of the fraud and misappropriation of funds.

Others with a more discerning eye had a more critical take. “A full 67% of money spent on an anti-AIDS program in Mauritania was misspent, the investigators told the fund’s board of directors. So did [sic] 36% of the money spent on a program in Mali to fight tuberculosis and malaria, 30% of grants to Djibouti” (source)

Who was minding the purse strings of USAID which was the source of funds that went from the US State Dept to the Global Fund at this juncture? Documents we sourced from the State Department show that none other than Secretary Hillary Clinton herself over saw the USAID funds.

At the same time the Clinton Foundation and Clinton HIV/AIDs and Clinton Health Access Initiative were collecting millions in fees

How did State Department view this fraud at the Global Fund? From a letter we sourced written by the Government Accountability Project on April 22, 2016, we learned: “this documentation strongly indicates an irregular and improper collusion between the Global Fund” and the State Department in Washington that cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in the succeeding years. It is tantamount to fraud.

At the same time the Clinton Foundation and Clinton HIV/AIDs and Clinton Health Access Initiative were collecting millions in fees, the Global Fund and also other recipients of Global Fund money who, in turn, were donors to the Clinton Foundation (classic money laundering). These donors include the governments of Dominican Republic, Rwanda, and Lesotho. Where was the State Department IG while all this was going on? Oh, yes, that’s right there was no IG for the State Department during HRC’s tenure. How does that happen? Perhaps the same way a Secretary of State sets up a secret server. Rule of law, anybody? (Source)

So when you hear from @BillGates and the World Health Organization @WHO and the Global Fund @GlobalFundand a host of others about WHO leader Tedros Adhanom, and for another version of the Global Fund to battle coronavirus, please retweet this thread.” [End Quote]
Below is the up-dated US Tax Court docket in the case of “Lawrence W. Doyle & John F. Moynihan v. the COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

The takeaways are these: (1) The Whistleblowers’ case is moving through that court system, although with sloth-like speed; and, (2) Batman and Robin are intrepid investigators on a mission that should give the Clintons pause.